Coming Up To Speed on Rspec

So, learning rspec has been on my list for a while. I finally got around to it. Nice framework. I am familiar with EasyMock, and am aware of JMock. I never had an opportunity to get into Mockito, but I’d give it a glance next time I put on my Java hat.

There is some decent documentation on it out there. I found these links particularly helpful:

• The formal documentation.
• David Chelimsky’s from-the-ground-up description
• rspec.info’s drill-down into Mocks and Stubs
• Luke Redpath’s cross-over into usage under Rails

During my ramping-up, I took the usual meta-approach of creating a test suite — and yaaay, that’s what rspec is meant for! — which I then used to test out its own range of capabilities. The Modules in the rdoc which I’ve found to provide the most value are:

• Spec::Expectations::ObjectExpectations for conditionals (eg. should & should_not)
• Spec::Matchers for expectations (eg. equal(value), be_a(class), respond_to(method_sym), raise_error)
• Spec::Mocks::Methods for mock method definition (eg. should_receive(method_sym))
• Spec::Mocks::MessageExpectation for mock behaviour (eg. with(*args), once, exactly(n).times, any_number_of_times)
• Spec::Mocks::ArgumentConstraints for mock arguments (eg. an_instance_of(class), anything)
• Spec::Mocks::BaseExpectation for mock responses (eg. and_return(value), and_yield(&block))

I won’t got into the deep details, but here are some examples of conditionals and expectations that I paraphrased into my meta-test:

	specify "knowledge of nil" do
		''.should_not be_nil
	end

	specify "numeric calculations" do
		(355.0 / 113).should be_close(Math::PI, 0.1)
	end

	specify "changes made by a closure" do
		array = []
		lambda {
			array << :a
		}.should change(array, :size)
	end

	specify "equality" do
		5.should eql 5
		5.should equal 5
		[:a].should_not equal [:a]
	end

	specify "raising of errors" do
		#	always construct fresh!!!
		#		otherwise it won't be re-wrappable
		def raiser(s=nil)
			lambda { raise(RuntimeError, s) if s }
		end

		raiser('x').should raise_error
		raiser('y').should raise_error(RuntimeError, 'y')
	end

	specify "closure satisfaction" do
		5.should satisfy {|n| (4..6).include?(n) }
	end

	specify "what lists do" do
		[].should respond_to(:each, :find, :size)
	end

And here’s a little bit of silly mocking:

	def expect_raise(type=Spec::Mocks::MockExpectationError, &block)
		abort 'block must be provided' unless block_given?
		block.should raise_error(type)
	end

	specify "the basics" do
		@mock.should_receive :hello
		@mock.should_not_receive :goodbye

		@mock.hello
		expect_raise { @mock.stay }
		expect_raise { @mock.goodbye }
	end

	specify "how many times, and with what" do
		@mock.should_receive(:one).once.with(1)
		@mock.one 1

		@mock.should_receive(:string).exactly(1).times.with(an_instance_of(String))
		@mock.string 'a string'

		@mock.should_receive(:anything).exactly(3).times.with(any_args())
		@mock.anything
		@mock.anything :again
		@mock.anything :third, 'time'

		@mock.should_receive(:array_ish).with(duck_type(:each, :find, :size))
		@mock.array_ish [:item]
	end

	specify "what i return, raise or throw" do
		@mock.should_receive(:get_one).and_return(1)
		@mock.should_receive(:put_one).with(1)
		@mock.put_one @mock.get_one

		@mock.should_receive(:increment).any_number_of_times.with(instance_of(Fixnum)).and_return {|i| i + 1 }
		@mock.increment(1).should equal(2)

		@mock.should_receive(:raises_string).and_raise('something runtime')
		expect_raise(RuntimeError) { @mock.raises_string }

		@mock.should_receive(:pitch).and_throw(:ball)
		lambda { @mock.pitch }.should throw_symbol(:ball)
	end

	specify "yielding in a complex fashion" do
		@mock.should_receive(:gimmee).exactly(3).times.and_yield(:x)

		holder = []
		@mock.gimmee {|value| holder << value }
		holder.should eql([:x])
		2.times { @mock.gimmee {|value| holder << value } }
		holder.should eql([:x, :x, :x])
	end

	specify "validation via closure" do
		(@mock.should_receive(:threely) do |value|
			value.to_s.size.should eql(3)
		end).exactly(3).times

		@mock.threely 'x' * 3
		@mock.threely :key
		@mock.threely 333
	end

These are just ways I thought of to exercise the width and breadth of the library. Very nice. I hope that these are useful examples for people new to this gem.

I recommend the other references from above for filling in the missing details. Once you have a context / specify or a describe / it specification set up, you’ll be good to go. There’s much more to the library — Stories, for instance — but that’s for another day.

An Informative Walk through Twitter4R

No, I didn’t really want to spend time learning rspec — I mean heck, I’m busy — but I had a personal need to expand the Twitter4R gem. Specifically, I wanted to add on some Twitter search features, and I was very impressed with how this library has been built. Contribution-wise, the final step that Susan Potter recommends is to craft up some rspec tests.

Of course, mock testing is only as good as the framework you’re built upon. The assumption is that Net::HTTP is going to do it’s job, so mock it up and you can even test your Twitter features offline. When I built Bitly4R (given that name, my thinking has clearly been influenced), I did everything as full-on functional tests. It was easy; bit.ly has both shorten and expand commands, so I could reverse-test real values without having any fixed expectations.

However, Twitter is live and user-generated, so who knows what you’ll find. Mocking covers that for you. And of course not having to hit the service itself shortest testing time dramatically.

Here’s one of my tests, again foreshortened:

	before(:each) do
		Twitter::Client.send :public, :create_http_get_request

		@client = Twitter::Client.new
		@client_clone = Twitter::Client.new
	end

	it "produces a querystring with all the crazy stuff Twitter imagined" do
		the_params = nil

		@client.should_receive(:create_http_get_request).and_return {|uri, params|
			the_params = params
			@client_clone.create_http_get_request(uri, params)
		}
		@client.should_receive(:http_connect).and_return Net::HTTPNotFound.mock(:code => '404')

		#	pass through a few we can pick back out
		#	also, side-effect ... nil on invalid response
		@client.search('query_value', :rpp => 3).should be_nil

		the_params.should_not be_nil
		the_params[:q].should eql('query_value')
		the_params[:rpp].should eql(3)
	end

Plus a little mocking of Net::HTTPResponse:

class Net::HTTPResponse
	def self.mock(ops={})
		#	defaults
		ops = {
			:http_version => '1.1',
			:code => '200',
			:message => 'OK',
			:body => nil,
		}.merge(ops || {})

		#	construct
		###clazz = CODE_TO_OBJ[ops[:code]]
		clazz = self
		response = clazz.new(ops[:http_version], ops[:code], ops[:message])

		#	inject
		ops.each do |k, v|
			response.instance_variable_set "@#{k}".to_sym, v
		end

		#	mockulate
		response.instance_eval %q{
			def body; @body; end
		}

		response
	end
end

Nothing like having some good inspiration to get you thinking about maintainability. I’m a not a strong adherent to any of the TDD or BDD denominations, but testability itself is close to my heart. Just ask the folks who’ll be looking at the micro-assertion Module that I wrote for my Facebook Puzzle submissions (which work locally under test conditions but fail miserably once thrown over their wall). Then again, I won’t need to write that (and test that) from scratch again.

So, back to talking glowingly about the Twitter4R architecture. Yes, I used that word. Yet regardless of that term’s heavyweightedness, it’s simply the result of carefully thinking out the formalization of a complex design. And once a non-author delves into extending an existing implementation, that impl’s demeanor becomes readily clear :)

Some of the interesting things I saw:

• An inner bless-ish strategy, to inject the Twitter::Client into instanciated result classes. I’ve seen blessing as an OO-Perl-ism, for self-ication, and that metaphor carries over very nicely to this context.
• Generous use of blocks / lambdas / closures in methods, for contextual iteration (eg. iterate through each Twitter::Message in a timeline response). Unnecessary, but an excellent convenience for a language that offers that optional capability in a very disposable fashion (from the caller’s perspective).
• Retroactive sub-object population after construction. Twitter4R relies upon the json gem, which deals primarily in Hashes. Post-injection, the library itereates through Arrays of Hashes and transforms them into suitable Twiltter::User containers, etc. A great place to put such logic in the construction chain, and it doesn’t take long to get really tired of Hash hierarchies.

Good stuff, and learning with in a Ruby-centric mindset was invaluable for me. We all have to start somewhere, eh.

The Acute Long-Term Pain of Staticness

There was one issue that I ran into; static configuration. During my years of using the Spring Framework, my IOC-addled brain started thinking of everything in terms of instances — Factory Beans, POJOs, Observers & Listeners, Chain-of-Responsibility wrappers. Static configuration is a common metaphor, and in this case, there’s a static Twitter::Config instance. Convenient and centralized. Makes perfect sense.

I mean, the fact that it was a configurable library at all was awesome. I was able to easily set up a Twitter::Client to reference search.twitter.com. However, of course as soon as I did that, I whacked the ability for clients to talk to twitter.com in the process. Oops!

On GPs, I refused to modify the original code. And I wanted to make sure that my superficial tweaks to the library would be thread-safe — temporarily swaping out the global Twitter::Config in mid-operation would be an issue. Using Mutex.synchronize seemed like the perfect choice. After finding that the same thread can’t lock a Mutex instance twice — grr!, that’s a great trick if you can work it — I overrode the one method that cared the most about @@config:

	@@config_mutex = Mutex.new
	def configuration_mutex
		@@config_mutex
	end

	alias :raw_http_connect :http_connect
	def http_connect(*args, &block)
		ops = (Hash === args.last) ? args.pop : {}

		result = nil
		self.configuration_mutex.synchronize do
			ops[:call_before].call if ops[:call_before]
			result = raw_http_connect *args, &block
			ops[:call_after].call if ops[:call_after]
		end

		result
	end

	#
	#	...
	#

	@@SEARCH_CONNECT_HOOKS = {
		:call_before => lambda { self.configure_apply(:search) },
		:call_after => lambda { self.configure_apply(:default) },
	}

	#
	#	...
	#

	#	broken out of closure for mocking
	req = create_http_get_request(uri, params)
	response = http_connect(@@SEARCH_CONNECT_HOOKS) {|conn|	req }
	return nil unless Net::HTTPOK === response

	model = bless_model(Twitter::Search.unmarshal(response.body))

It works like a charm. Please, everyone just line up to tell me how I could have done it better. And I don’t mean quicker or cheaper, I mean better. Believe me, I would not have sunk the time into this end-around approach, if not for the fact that:

1. I don’t want to maintain a local gem code modification (even though my impl is closely coupled to the gem impl already)
2. I intend to follow that practice, so every opportunity to pull and end-around is a Valuable Learning Experience.

So, now my local Twitter4R has search capability gracefully latched onto it (and implemented much in the flavor of the library itself). I have a mass of rspec examples to work off in the future.

Now, I haven’t spent a great amount of time testing the thread-safeness — no one in their right mind wants to do that — but my sundry Twitter::Client instances play nicely together in between searches and normal status operations.

And I had something useful to blog about!